CALL FOR POSTERS & GRAPHICS AGAINST MILITARY INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is an organization of Global War on Terrorism veterans, many of whom have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that historically has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, demanded reparations for the Iraqi and Afghan people, and fights for full veterans benefits for all returning service members. On August 29th IVAW released a statement opposing US military intervention in Syria.

In effort to respond to the pro-military intervention messaging dominating the media Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling on artists and creatively minded peoples to make posters and graphics against US military intervention in Syria.

All submissions will be reviewed by IVAW members and then selected posters will be posted to the IVAW website and facebook for wide distribution and use during demonstrations.

Posters and graphics can be designed on the computer or hand drawn and then photographed with a high resolution camera. All posters and graphics should be 11 x 17 inches or 22 x 34 inches at 300dpi saved as PDFs or JPEG files. We encourage artists to use the references below for proposed slogans and prompts and to create positive messages of resistance.

WE WILL NOT SACRIFICE FOR YOUR PROFIT: Iraq Veterans Against the War Continues to Stand With War Resisters

NEVER AGAIN

WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR

VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE

THERE IS ANOTHER WAY

WE WANT PEACEFUL ENGAGEMENT

WE WANT NON-MILITARY ENGAGEMENT

WE DON'T WANT YOUR STINKING WAR

IVAW STANDS AGAINST A THIRD WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

NO BASHAR, NO USA. THERE MUST BE A 3RD WAY

HEIGHTENED MILITARIZATION OF SYRIAN SOCIETY IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM

SYRIA IS NOT A PLAYGROUND FOR YOUR PROXY WAR

DON’T USE SYRIA FOR YOUR PROXY BATTLEFIELD

POSSIBLE TEXT:

Military strike would be illegal – International Law is very clear on this topic. UN Charter allows military force only if immediate self-defense (Art 51), which is not applicable, as the US not been attacked by Syria. Or, military force is legal if the Security Council agrees (Chapter VII, Art 42). This is not going to happen – Russian veto, probably Chinese, maybe even Britain---NATO is not a substitute for the UN Security Council.

Military strike would be immoral – Every use of military force threatens civilian lives, specifically cruise missiles, which are not completely accurate. Additionally, more than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far. U.S. cruise missile strikes won’t protect Syrian civilians from further threat, they will increase civilian casualties.

Military strike would be dangerous – Potential military strikes threaten to further destabilization the region. These actions will most likely result in greater anti-American sentiment throughout the region and potentially terrorist attacks. These proposed military strikes could also mean retaliation from Syria and/or its allies.

“As veterans of the Global War on Terror, we understand the catastrophic consequences of violence and militarism. Indeed, we demand the people of Syria have a Right to Heal, along with US veterans, and the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and other war-torn nations.”

“Having served in the global war on terror, IVAW can’t help but illustrate the glaring hypocrisy of the US drawing a ‘red line’ surrounding the use of chemical weapons. The United States has repeatedly deployed chemical biological weapons in combat: Japan (Hiroshima/Nagasaki), Vietnam (Agent Orange/Dioxin), and Iraq (Depleted Uranium/White Phosphorus).”

“Any US missile strike or further military involvement will destabilize the region and could lead to increased involvement on behalf of the US and its Western allies. Remember, Afghanistan began as a limited war and eventually became the longest war in US history.”

By striking Syria we risk being drawn into a regional war that we will not be able to easily escape. Having participated in a war that was declared ‘Mission Accomplished’ early on only to continue for another 8 years, this possibility seems all too likely.

“By potentially striking Syria, the United States risks further destabilizing a region already tormented from years of US occupation and militarism.”

Any attack on Syria would be in violation of International Law. Since Syria has not attacked the United States, and because the UN Security Council will not authorize military action, the Obama Administration would be repeating the pattern of previous administrations by breaking International Laws and long standing treaties.”

“A recent Reuters poll shows that 60% of Americans oppose military action in Syria. As veterans committed to the principles of democracy, peace and social justice, we believe the Obama administration and Congress should reflect the views of their constituents.”

“Instead of sending missiles and increasing violence in Syria, the United States should use its economic and diplomatic capacities to ease the suffering of refugees and victims of the conflict and pursue a diplomatic solution.”

Our stated military involvement has already expanded beyond Obama’s initial statements. Until recently the administration stated cruise missiles would be the only military equipment used, but after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing we are using aircraft to target Assad’s military assets.